|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Wednesday, August 31, 2011: Bar Admissions Misc. 1 In the Matter of the Application of Karim Timothy Cheikh for Admission to the Bar of Maryland Attorney for Appellant: Phillip G. Dantes AG 11 (2010 T) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joel David Joseph Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell No. 1 Charles Y. Kim v. Maryland State Board of Physicians ISSUES - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - (1) SHOULD THE BOARD OF PHYSICIANS (BOP) BE PERMITTED TO USE INFORMATION OBTAINED THROUGH THE CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE? (2) IS COMPLETING A RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR A PHYSICIAN’S LICENSE ACTING “IN THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE”? (3) SHOULD THE BOP BE PERMITTED TO CHARGE & PUNISH A PHYSICIAN FOR “WILLFULLY” MAKING FALSE REPRESENTATIONS WHEN THE PHYSICIAN DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS POSED? Attorney for Appellant: Frederick W. Goundry III No. 3 State of Maryland v. Bryan Sivells ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WHETHER THE INVITED RESPONSE DOCTRINE PERMITS THE PROSECUTOR TO RESPOND TO A “DIRECT & SPECIFIC ATTACK ON A POLICE OFFICER WITNESS’ VERACITY”? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT MISINTERPRET THE “OPENED DOOR” DOCTRINE, AS THIS COURT HAS APPLIED IT TO CLOSING ARGUMENTS BY HOLDING IT INAPPLICABLE TO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE IMPROPER VOUCHING? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT FAIL TO ADEQUATELY DEFINE THE LIMITS OF APPROPRIATE CLOSING ARGUMENT BY HOLDING THAT THE MAJORITY OF DEFENSE COUNSEL’S CLOSING ARGUMENT WAS PROPER IN SPITE OF COUNSEL’S DISCUSSION OF FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE & REPEATED ASSERTIONS OF HIS PERSONAL OPINION OF THE POLICE OFFICERS’ INTEGRITY & THE STRENGTH OF THE STATE’S CASE? Attorney for Appellant: Carrie J. Williams No. 9 Joel Pautsch v. Maryland Real Estate Commission ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE - DID THE MD REAL ESTATE COMMISSION ACT WITHIN ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REVOKED THE PETITIONER’S REAL ESTATE LICENSES BASED ON HIS FELONY CONVICTIONS FOR CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 17-322(b)(24)(i) AND (d) OF THE BUSINESS OCCUPATIONS & PROFESSIONS ARTICLE? Attorney for Appellant: Nancy Forster
AG 66 (2010 T) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Lucille Saundra White AG 23 (2010 T) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Peter Richard Maignan No. 2 Kenneth Gerald Stabb v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE STATE UTILIZE ANY SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE OR SCIENTIFIC TEST TO PROVE ITS CASE? No. 8 Hosea Anderson, et ux. v. John S. Burson, et al. ISSUES - STATUTORY - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT THE SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES’ PRINCIPAL, DEUTSCHE, WAS “A NONHOLDER IN POSSESSION OF THE NOTE WHO HAD THE RIGHTS OF A HOLDER,” WHERE DEUTSCHE FILED A LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH DEUTSCHE ADMITTED THAT IT DID NOT POSSESS THE NOTE AT THE TIME THIS CASE WAS FILED? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RELYING SOLELY ON THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE TO DETERMINE THAT THE UNENDORSED NOTE WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO DEUTSCHE WHILE DISREGARDING CONTRARY LANGUAGE IN THE POOLING & SERVICING AGREEMENT WHICH CREATED & GOVERNS THE SECURITIZED TRUST? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING INEFFECTIVE AN ENDORSEMENT BY THE NAMED PAYEE AFTER IT HAD TRANSFERRED THE NOTE?
AG 69 (2010 T) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Spencer Dean Ault Attorney for Petitioner: Glenn M. Grossman AG 34 (2010 T) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Timothy Shawn Gordon Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein No. 6 Gerald Thomas Titus, Jr. v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS THE EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER GAVE A FALSE NAME TO A POLICE OFFICER DURING A TRAFFIC STOP SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT HIM OF OBSTRUCTING OR HINDERING A POLICE OFFICER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY? Attorney for Appellant: Ben Miller
AG 28 (2010 T) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Brenda Carol Brisbon Attorney for Petitioner: Gail D. Kessler AG 10 (2010 T) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Andre Levell Brady Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell No. 4 Linda Freilich, et al. v. Upper Chesapeake Health Systems, Inc., et al. ISSUE - HEALTH CARE - IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING IS THE PRESUMPTION OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT (HCQIA) IMMUNITY REBUTTED UPON THE SHOWING OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE REGARDING THE PHYSICIAN’S REPORTING OF SUBSTANDARD MEDICAL CARE & ATTEMPTS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CARE IN THE HOSPITAL SYSTEM? Attorney for Appellant: Paul S. Blumenthal No. 12 Megan Cathey v. Board of Review, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ISSUE - STATUTORY - HEALTH - IS A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED INDIVIDUAL ELIGIBLE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED OR FUNDED BY THE DDA DURING THE TIME SHE RESIDES WITH HER FATHER IN MD IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COURT ORDER GRANTING THE FATHER JOINT LEGAL & RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY, & DIRECTING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATE HER TIME EQUALLY WITH EACH PARENT IN SUCCESSIVE TWO-WEEK INTERVALS? Attorney for Appellant: Andrew H. Baida
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified. After September 8, 2011 the Court will recess until October 6, 2011.
BESSIE M. DECKER |